Duncan Denied – Sunahara V. HI Dept. of Health Dismissed

The link and article, from Dean Haskins, over at the Birther Summit are below my “update”. It is as I suspected it would be.

I will have some tid-bits of my own to add later today. ADDED :

The information that I am now adding I have hinted at a few times in past blog posts. It never panned out for me, so I was never able to do a full post on it before.

Almost exactly one year ago I contacted a professional genealogist firm and asked them to do several things for me.

I asked if they could contact the Honolulu Dept of Health in a professional capacity and request official answers to a few “quirky” questions that I had.

One was the following:

In the Birth Index books that are available to the general public, spanning five years each, we found multiple entries that were “duplicates”. Not a “duplicate” entry preceded or followed by the original entry (?), but just last name, the word “duplicate”, and the first name.

Actually, some “duplicate” entries also had a last name, but no first name. I will attach a copy of one image here. In this image you can see a “duplicate” with a first name, and also several entries of just last names followed by nothing but an asterisk. I have marked them with pink.

I surmise that the last names followed by an asterisk are deceased infants who were not given first names, and are cross referenced in the Birth Index. I can not figure out what the *surname, “duplicate”, given name*, entries are.

I became very curious when I noticed these, and attempted to ask the staff at the Dept. Of Health the seemingly simple question of why those entries are there. I admit freely that it is just curiosity, but my first request to them by phone received a curt answer that instructed me to place my question in writing. I did so, but have been utterly ignored. Which has served to make me much more curious!

Well, after the genealogists discussed this amongst themselves, they had several theories – none of which really seemed to fit. So I requested that they go ahead and get the OFFICIAL answer from the HDoH. In addition to that I asked if they could get some simple birth/death records for Virginia.

I did not expect or really hope to get the Sunahara records, I was pretty certain that the HDoH would not allow those to be released to a genealogist or even to Virginia’s family, but I thought, what the hell! Give it a shot.

So, I fired off my next request, along with a copy of the HDoH’s guidelines specifically for genealogists, and the corresponding links to the HDoH’s website. The geneoligist thought there should be no problem getting the “duplicate” mystery cleared up, and according to the HDoH rules AT THAT TIME, there should be no problem in obtaining the records that I had requested.

Oh those silly genealogists!

I requested a brief summary from them today, and will publish that as soon as it is provided. I have maintained the full email exchange record that I had with them, so if for some reason I do NOT receive the summary, I will post the most relevant emails shortly.

Needless to say – the HDoH never answered a single question, nor provided a single record – not even a simple copy of the entry in the Birth Index available for the public at large to view – nothin’. End of update.

This is the link to the full article pictured in the screenshot below:

The thing is that it also gives the DoH cover in it’s (the DoH’s) strange interpretation of it’s own reg simply allowing the shortest form of COLB to be given out as the “quickie” version if one needs a copy of ones birth record. The more substantial version of the COLB, erroneously referred to by most of us as “the long form birth certificate”, could still be had as recently as a year ago by simply specifying which “form” you needed. We have that on video.

What this also does is to bring the DoH activities under even more scrutiny.

WHY deny a full sibling the “long form” COLB for his deceased sister? She died over fifty years ago, WHY take the seemingly peremptory action of disinheriting this family member of a simple, harmless link to his sister?

There is information on that form that could be used for family reasons, Dr.’ s name, weight, etc. There is a reason to get the original and there is no reason to deny it. Do you know what they plan to do?

No, not really. Dean is the only one working with Duncan now I believe – besides the lawyer. Really, according to the way HI had handled such requests prior to obama being elected, this would have been given to Duncan without a hitch. That is really the thing – that and the court refusing to compel the DOH to release it. What possible reason could they actually have not to?

Why would the HDoH risk breaking their own rules to deny Duncan Sunahara a copy of the birth records of his sister who died long ago one day after being born, unless they (the HDoH) had something very incriminating to hide?

Of course, the most obvious and likely answer is that to do so would reveal that Obama, with the full complicity of the HDoH, has stolen and is using Virginia Sunahara’s original BC number as his own.

In a sane world such highly suggestive evidence, although perhaps not conclusively incriminating, would indicate to any judge that there was ample probable cause that a crime had been committed and that the HDoH was not to be trusted. And this in turn would lead to a thorough and immediate independent investigation of all pertinent records at the HDoH (probably by law enforcement swooping in and taking physical control of those records).

One has to be drowning in obot sycophant kool-aid not to recognize this.